|
<br />
<br />'-j
<br />:,1
<br />: i ~i I
<br />! i ! ili! tl
<br />,! i il- ,j 'I;
<br />.lune 13, 1973, which reinforces that donc~u~i~n,is:l.nce it overs the same
<br />"current use" concept now promulgated lin 739 ~M 4 which is to be applied
<br />wherever it is legally pe~ssible an~ a~i~tratively ap~ropriate.
<br />To further illuminate the legal and administr~tive probl relating to
<br />the report recommendations and to pro~ide',a~d~tional backg ound perspective,
<br />we are enclosing a copy of the Billings, Mo~~a; Field So icitor's
<br />memorandum of March 21, 1973, sUbject:1 "~,'r~iP sal,:, to incr se c,ost (SEE NOTE A.)
<br />allocations to power functions during iperi01 ~hich irri ation
<br />development delayed-PicK-Sloan Misso~ri ~as Program," ( nclosure 3).
<br />I
<br />
<br />In light of the foregoing and consideting some of the potential changes,
<br />such as, additions of hydrogeneration capaqity; coal slur;y pipeline
<br />and other industrial water use; and the preser1t state of flux regarding
<br />the outcome of such authorized PSMBP un:l.ts as Garr:l.son, Oahe, Na.rrows,
<br />North Loup, and 0 'Ne:l.ll we believe i~ woUl~ be premature and perhaps
<br />fru:l.tless in the immediate future to ~ttemp~ the sort of complete
<br />reanalysis and reallocat:l.on of the PSl'\BP be:!fg recO'J!llllended i:l.n the l)raft
<br />Report. Th:l.s is not to suggest that t:eevaluation 1$ not needed, Obviously,
<br />it will be necessary at some t1me in ~he not-too~d:l.stant-future. However,
<br />it should be recognized that when the itask is undertaken, it will requ:l.re
<br />the concurrence of the Corps of Engineers I and the Department of Energy.
<br />plus the comm:l.tment of substant:l.al tillie and funds e~tending over a period
<br />of at least 2-3 years, In this regar~, we bel:l.eve the Report, taken in a
<br />s1mpl:l.stic view as presented, can be viery mj,slead:l.ng to those who may
<br />be unaware of the d:l.ff:l.culty of actua.J11Y ach,iev:l.ng the recommended
<br />changes, not to mention their rather _ubstantial' impl:l.cat:l.ons with regard
<br />to changes in eXisting law and relate~ contractual,s well'as institutional
<br />arrangements, '
<br />
<br />EXHIBIT IV
<br />Page 2 of 3
<br />
<br />As previously implied, we believe cha~ges in the effective laws would
<br />be necessary in order to implement mo~t of the reco~dations proposed
<br />] -: - - ,
<br />for the PSMBP in the Draft Report.'Thlis is lalso out opinion concerning
<br />the recommendations proposed for gene~al applicatio~ on all Bureau
<br />projects; namely, the annual amortiza~ion'o~ irriga#ion assistance
<br />from commercial power revenues. .. bEE NOTE B.) I
<br />, ' !
<br />,
<br />
<br />With respect to our concern about the~e recdmmendat!ons, including the
<br />related effects and consequences, it ~houldbe note~ that in the promulgation
<br />of 730 OM 4 policy, Section 1 (730.4.~) includes thf following caveat:
<br />". . . except where deviations theref40m ara specif cally approved by
<br />the Secretary, authoriz ed kl. statute, lor idlftified and explained , . .,"
<br />(emphasis added). In the absence of a, Secretarial directive of exception
<br />in any part:l.cular case, th:l.s directiv~ places the onus for compliance
<br />with the law squarely upon the admini~trator, i.e"on the Comm:l.ssioner
<br />of Reclamat:l.on for the lawful and pro~er a~istration of Reclamat:l.on
<br />proj ects.
<br />
<br />2
<br />
|